Preparing for a Nov. 8 nightmare scenario

You can feel it building in the back of your mind, in that gray and desolate place where your darkest thoughts go before they metastize into grim reality: The worst-case, end-of-the-Republic, nascent civil war scenario that polls show is more and more possible -- though thank goodness certainly not probable -- after the November election.

It goes like this: Dems net 15-17 seats in the House to narrowly win the chamber. Teams of Republican lawyers fan out across the country, challenging all close elections and filing for recounts everywhere. Meanwhile, Rove & Co. work behind the scenes, making proverbial offers-that-can't-be-refused to Blue Dog Democrats to switch parties -- while they still can.

In the Senate, we win 51 seats to control the chamber. However, an Independent senator, one Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, decides to switch caucuses and throws in with the Republicans. As intended, with Cheney's vote that effectively hands control back to the GOP despite the wishes of the voters.

What comes next? More below...

Every football coach and every general plans and wargames for worst-case scenarios. You hope you never have to pull out the Doomsday contingency, but you're always ready.

Washington Dems may or may not have such a contingency plan. Experience from 2000 and 2004 tells us they not only don't have such a plan, but the DLC will actively discourage any attempt to guarantee the wishes of the electorate.

The DC Dems are out of our control. So the question becomes: What will the netroots do?

What will you do?

It is my urgent hope that if -- God/Allah/the Universe/the Buddha/Vishnu/Natural Law forbid -- such a worst-case scenario does come to pass, that our side is not completely blind-sided by it. As the left's primary online community, I think it's incumbent on us to do some brainstorming as to what a possible nationwide netroots plan of action might look like.

I don't have a lot of answers. But I hope we can begin to come up with some while we still can.

•  tips, tinfoil accusations, etc.

  by Jim J on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:23:06 AM PDT

  •  Glad to see your post on this subject

    I got troll rated for a comment that we should be planning what to do on Nov. 8.  I guess we can't walk and chew gum - we're all supposed to be focused on GOTV.

    My scenario would be worse than yours - what if we don't gain either house and a number of races have the smelly 51-49 split, breaking against all polling before the election?

    We should be planning how WE will be demanding recounts, examining voting machines, filing suit or whatever else it takes to verify the election.  Since we've already seen testimony that elections have been rigged in 2000, 2002, and 2004, we need to plan for it again, not ignore it.

    It's just good business practice to have a contingency plan for risk.  In this case, the risk is rigged elections.  So, what's our plan if we think that's happened?  I've heard far too many people say - let's not worry about this until it happens.  Wrong - it's called planning.  Really common stuff and we should do it.

    Sure it will be great if everything breaks our way.  And if it doesn't we do what?  Scream in panic and then scramble around?  Wow, that's a really organized response - in fact, a response we'd expect from Republicans...

    by lizpolaris on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:26:47 AM PDT

    •  Christ - we ought to have

      already written the legal briefs asking the courts to seize the deibold machines as evidence, before further tampering can undo whatever has happened.

      Frankly, I'm still in the dark on the whole "how the hell do we figure out if vote tampering happened with the Deibolds" thing. There may be no reason to go to court or pursue remedies, since no evidence of wrongdoing may exist.

      Nonetheless, the strategy(ies) need to be written and ready to go NOW.  

      by Everest42 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:53:02 AM PDT

•  Of course the Republicans will win

  They own the counting machines.

  by greendem on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

  •  Yes I think JimJ's worst case is too rosy

    Our 15-17 House seats may not materialize even though we have earned them and then some.  Ditto gains in the Senate.

    And our national leaders will have ONLY the Suck It Up Til 08 strategy.  If we're fine with that, then fine.  But if we want an Orange Revolution a la Ukraine, we've got to do serious planning now AND SO DO THE DCCC et al.

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:39:50 AM PDT

    •  Lawsuits

      Aren't the Trial Lawyers Dem tools?  Then let's use our tools.  Sue every state or county that uses uncertified voting machines.  Define certified to mean the code must be reviewed by actual computer geeks, and it must be publically available to avoid any trap doors, patches, etc.

      Sue all the Secs of State and County Election Officials who allowed Diebold etc to alter any of the software.

      Damn it, this has to stop!

      The Music Room.

      by madhaus on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:16:57 AM PDT

      •  My Profesional Opinion

        As a Computer Geek, Software Engineer, and Published Computer Scientist, is that NO SYSTEM will be secure as long as there is software involved.

        the complexity of such a system esencially rule out such a posiblity.

        ALL SOFTWARE HAS BUGS

        no software is bug free.  there are always errors, its just a matter of who knows them.

        by haagmm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:57:24 AM PDT

  •  Of course the republicans

    may relish a narrow victory, say 3 or 4 seats, as long as they control the Senate and the presidency.

    They will then have two years to the lead up to the 2008 election crying 'look at those Democrats, beating up on our dear leader (meanwhile beating up on him theirselves - depending on who the candidate is).

    Of course, what they may not expect is that the Democrats refuse to play into their playbook.'

    If the Democrats (and I think they will), play up ethics, accountability and fiscal responsibliity, then the Republicans may have realized they lost far more than they first thought.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:47:31 AM PDT

  •  First thing we do is

    cut our losses.  Voting machines MUST go everywhere we have power.

    On the national level, if we get control, pass a law banning commercial electronic voting machines, or at least requiring all e-voting machines sold now and in the future to have a voter-verified reciept.

    On the state level do the same.  Ditto for county level, if that's the level they buy voting machines at.

    They must go before 2008 -- and the best way to do that is to sell it as a campaign to prevent voting fraud.  Make it sound completely nonpartisan -- and make it sound like it's something that no sane Republican could ever disagree with.

    by lemming22 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

    •  We may need a tradeoff: voter ID

      And yes it is more onerous for poor voters, but I think we'll need it.  As a quid pro quo to demonstrate we're against ALL fraud.  

      by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:32:45 AM PDT

      •  That's only if necessary.

        It makes things a lot difficult for lots of people -- the elderly included.

        Don't like it, but it definately beats the alternative.

        by lemming22 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:16:59 AM PDT

  •  Not another stupid voting machine post

    These get really old--and embarassing.

    by jiacinto on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:14:26 PM PDT

•  Other.

  I would endorse all out civil war.

  by Delaware Dem on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:31:18 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't endorse it, but a 4 anyway.

    I think it's high time we finished what was started in 1861-- a separation into the two nations we have always been.

    But I would much rather see it happen peacefully.

    by SensibleShoes on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:38:15 AM PDT

    •  Dems seceeding, again!? we're gonna

      develop a reputation ;)

      by PhillyGal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

      •  If at first you don't secede

        Try, try again.
        It's unfortunate, though, that in the interim we've allowed our tax dollars to be spent to build mondo military bases in the red states.

        by SensibleShoes on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:44:54 AM PDT

    •  Ack

      Noooooooooooooo! I'm in a really groovy city in North Carolina (Asheville). We vote leftward of Marx. Don't abandon us!!!!!!!

      by Ryvr on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:45:31 AM PDT

      •  Isn't that Shuler territory?

        So is he gonna win or what?

        by Jim J on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:46:46 AM PDT

      •  Guys, guys, guys.

        There will be no separation into two countries.  We are simply going to banish all the fundies and racists and warlovers and arabhaters to Iraq.  They love the place so much, they can live there and help build their beloved democracy.

        This is my country.  All of it.  I want the deep south back.  We need to complete the job of civilizing the place.  

        by Delaware Dem on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:56:14 AM PDT

      •  We'll trade

        Rochester, MN for Asheville, N.C.  

        by NorthlandLiberal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

      •  Don't worry -- we'll carve off West NC

        The mountains were where many of the Union loyalists were, anyway -- not just West Virginia, but right down the Appalachians.

        Knoxville was virtually an occupied city (by the Confederacy) during the Civil War, and when Alabama seceded from the Union, Winston County seceded from Alabama.

        by Ducktape on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:03:00 AM PDT

    •  Conquer, Don't Divide

      We shouldn't secede or divide the country. That gives the enemy too much power, and rips off our investments in them that propped them up since the beginning in the 1800s.

      Instead, we should cut off the Welfare States from the subsidies Blue States send them. A little "fiscal conservatism" that would make them suffer the costs of their 3rd World culture.

      Hard to do without controlling Congress. But if Democrats do take control, they should immediately hamstring the Red States to undo the damage to Blue State power Republicans did by fattening up those loser magnets with money to burn.

      That's my flyover territory you're talking about giving to the zombies. I won't let it go without a fight.

      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:53:12 AM PDT

      •  saddly i live in a blue welfare state.

        right there at number 16.

        by haagmm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:00:48 PM PDT

        •  The Blues

          How "Blue" is Maine when it elects 2 Republicans to the Senate? Sure, Mainers voted for Kerry, 2 Democratic House reps and a Democratic governor - pretty Blue. But maybe its pork has a lot to do with its Republican Senators, 4% of the Senate representing 0.4% of America.

          by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 06:57:39 PM PDT

    •  I have said this and gotten flamed

      but just think how much easier decision-making would be if we weren't caught between polar worldviews.  Let the South have their Biblical States of America, with Richmond as their capitol. Meanwhile the Sane States of America won't have to listen to their bullshit anymore.  

      I honestly do think that we should have divided into two nations in 1865. Moreover, there is no intrinsic reason why we have to remain one country now. I can't see it happening, but OTOH, if it is the only way to get away from the Biblical States of America, hell, maybe we could unite with Canada or something.

      Flame away.

      by libertyisliberal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:08:35 PM PDT

  •  You bring the guns.

    I'll bring the Pie.

    by god less force on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

  •  i thought that was the second option n/t

    by haagmm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:58:31 AM PDT

•  I'm recommending because i think we really have

  to have a plan. The scenerio I am most worried about is that they just steal the election. In other countries it is an accepted fact that elections are stolen and political leaders mobilize their supporters to confront the theft. Here this is a very new possibility and not widely accepted so that is the worst case scenerio we have to plan for. I hope this does generate a discussion about possible responses.

  by Tanya on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:31:38 AM PDT

  •  Sackcloth?

    Ashes?  Umbrellas for bits of falling sky?

    There is NO WAY to prepare for speculative bad news.  This is like picking scabs off of wounds that haven't been inflcted yet.  

    I understand the impulse...boy, do I ever.  But that's not the point...WHY GO THERE? What possible good does this kind of rumination do?

    The election is certainly not a foregone conclusion...so sure, let's say it happens.  What else is there to do?  Move?  Take to the streets?  Work harder for the next time around.  I find this line of thought, personlly, entirely counter-productive and non-worthwhile.  Sorry.

    Other than that...good diary.

    by mayan on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:51 AM PDT

    •  Listen to yourself

      There is NO WAY to prepare for speculative bad news

      This is like saying, "no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees".  Of COURSE people can plan for speculative bad news.  That's what advance planning IS.

      by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:45:49 AM PDT

      •  Actually....

        very different things as far as I'm concerned.  If a bunch of experts are telling you that something will happen unless you take steps, you take those steps to avoid the catastrophe.

        Don't mean to be harsh...but I consider this line of thought to be entirely hand-wringing.  What contingency plans do you have in mind to prevent this "nightmare" from happening?  What is in your control to "stop" it.  The only thing that I can think of is hard work, lots of donations and strategic thinking for the ground game.

        If that doesn't work and the Dems lose...what are your plans for addressing it?  Riots?  Becoming an expat?  

        See...I can do something now to help assure victory.  I can work, donate and strategize.  Those are the steps like shoring up the levees would have been the proper steps.  Personally, it does me NO good at this point in the game to contemplate my actions after a speculative defeat.  But don't let me get in the way of a swell time.

        by mayan on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:01:25 AM PDT

        •  Advance planning and Post planning

          Nobody, but nobody, is advocating abandoning the former, okay?  By all means shore up the levees and GOTV.  But the idea that we'll jinx ourselves by saying "what if" is some kind of positivist superstition.

          Contingency plans after the fact ain't pretty.  But if a storm comes that the levees DON'T handle, then what?  A FEMA director who says it was beyond "control to 'stop' it" is far from helpful, as we have seen.  I say we need extensive civil disobedience, which is more likely to happen if planned in advance.  And, I say we need extensive and coordinated legal challenges, as detailed in some excellent comments below by Cotterperson and by Philipogog.  Will these efforts change the outcome?  Probably not, any more than a flooded city can be unflooded.  But they would reduce suffering and increase the number of survivors rescued.

          That is not handwringing.  That is disaster planning.  Snark about what a "swell time" it is to even broach the possibility of such planning is, I suppose, I suppose, a swell time in and of itself.  And later, we're manning the rescue boats, you can tell us we caused it, too.  

          by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:27:50 AM PDT

        •  Get real, mayan

          Remember the Florida election in 2000?  What did the Republicans do when they thought they lost the state?  Cry and wait 'til next time?  NO.

          They got their troops on the ground.  Granted they used some illegal and abusive tactics we wouldn't want to employ.  But they also legitimately called for recounts and rallied supporters and lawyers to investigate where they thought vote counts were inaccurate.  I'm no expert on the topic of voting but I would guess we have some working for the party who could create a plan.  And we should plan on helping them.

          by lizpolaris on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:33:43 AM PDT

          •  Let me clarify...

            As I said above, it seems to me that most of what we can do is preventative at this point.  This includes, where possible, poll-judging and volunteering.  This also includes making sure that there is a massive GOTV for the Dems.

            As to questions of massive voter fraud or stealing of elections, there is very little to be done at this point...particularly without the umbrella of the campaign and political organizations.

            Ultimately, I do not believe that Karl Rove's brownshirt riots gave the election to Bush.  To be sure there was a coordinated strategy at the top that involved the operative riots but the lock was in from Bush's brother, the Governor, Katherine Harris the Sec'y of State and the Supreme Court.  It wasn't, at least solely, a question of who could yell the loudest.

            To be sure, stolen elections bother me.  They are a great American bi-partisan tradition.  Personally speaking, I believe that there is little realistically that we can do, at this level, to address the issue currently.  We have very little idea as to which elections out of the 435 reps and (I don't know) how many Senators may be stolen in which state and which district.

            Hence, my personal preference, realistically speaking, to put my efforts into doing everything I can to make sure the candidates I support win it all.  Not really sure that I have much more to be said on the matter    

            by mayan on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:07:53 PM PDT

        •  little of colum a little of colum b n/t

          by haagmm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:02:41 PM PDT

    •  Umbrellas!!! I like it

      Dems -- take your umbrella to the polls with you, just in case ther is a Republican vote storm.  This is a good place to begin.  

      The day after elections -- what will we do next?

      by drmah on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:06:39 AM PDT

      •  Purple-dyed umbrellas

        by mayan on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:11:43 AM PDT

•  Silly People

  Once again, the naysayers and the negativos insist on posting here.  

  At the present time, we're on a roll and everyone is forecasting a big win on Nov. 7, including the two Republican-leaning futures markets.  Take a look at the last 2 weeks on InTrade and the Iowa electronic Markets and you'll see a total free-fall of the betting on GOP chances.

  Granted, some cataclysmic event could stop our momentum cold, but at this point that's highly unlikely.

  But what to we have here?  Instead of diaries saying "don't get over-confident and let's get out and work and contribute," we get characters like you mAking silly posts like this.

  Rove is not a genius or a Rasputin.  He works hard and he wins some and he loses some.  This time around, we've skunked him at every turn.  Stop looking for some mythical way to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.  We simply need to work for the next 4 weeks.

  You sound like the chickenhawk Republicans we always criticize.  "Gee, mommy, is that evil man gonna get us again?"

  Put that garbage aside and let's work hard and successfully finish this great job we started.  Let's be positive here.  We deserve it!

  by tailor324 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:38:19 AM PDT

  •  News flash: Bush lost twice and he's still there

    so I don't think a contingency plan is "silly".

    Your plans are fine and I'm on board with all that, truly.  But I'd like a backup plan as well, ok?

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:42:10 AM PDT

  •  False Choice

    The diarist isn't doing any of the strawman things you're charging them with. In fact, they explicitly described Democrats winning those elections, for which we all have to work.

    They talk about planning for the worst while expecting the "best" (or adequate) result we're working for. And they describe the real reasons why, with which any reasonable planner would agree.

    No, it is you who sounds like one of these Republican flacks, equating plans to mitigate dashed hopes with dashing those hopes. Making only binary choices of winning or losing, not "winning despite losing despite winning".

    Are you sure you're not just trolling us into complacency, so we don't prepare ourselves for Republican tricks to undo even the victory we're all working for? Were you doing that during the 2000 and 2004 elections when we really needed better plans for exactly this scenario, when Gore and Kerry won but lost?

    by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

•  First, suck in some air....

  ...you folks need some oxygen.

  There.

  Now...first, it's unlikely that you will have Blue-Dog Dems switching parties after the election.  For every threat Rove can display, Rahm can be worse, and he will not countenance being screwed by his own people.  

  The bigger fear is Lieberman switching parties, which I can see as a strong possibility.

  In that case, what we should be doing now is fighting for Lamont and all other Senate candidates where we stand a chance of a victory.  I've oled out $100 donations to folks in Montana, Virginia, and Missouri.  It'll kill me to do it, but I might have to actually give to Ford in Tennessee (because he and I have way different political views), but I want us to own both the House and Senate.

  I dunno what to do for Lamont, as he's able to self-finance, I have no friends or relative in CT, and I live on the other coast.  (Suggestions welcome.)

  Anyway, from there....I guess I would make Lieberman's life a living hell, with the aid of the blogs and local CT people who I would financially support, from day one of his switch to the Republicans to whenever he leaves in disgrace from office.

  by Palamedes on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:38:58 AM PDT

  •  Agree Dems switching is the least of our worries

    And agree with BWasikIUgrad below that in fact a few moderate R's might a switch IF THEY HAD cover.  

    No, what I think need work and concern isn't D's waffling after being smoothly voted in:  my concerns are additional October surprises re Iran/Korea, and about our GOTV, and about Diebold issues.

    Yes, oxygen is good.  Even optimism is good.  But trusting in the current Foleygate wave is no reason to become unduly relaxed.  

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:52:04 AM PDT

    •  Believe me, I'm NOT relaxed....

      I'm near "pissing off" stage in terms of pushing lots of people to get off their collective asses and doing things, believe you me.  Especially GOTV.

      As far as I'm concerned, we're behind by ten points on EVERYTHING until elction day comes and we are past the accusations and counter-accusations.  The polls mean nothing but distractions for me until November 8th arrives.

      I'd rather be paranoid about assuring a victory than about what happens the day after.  I at least have some ability to control events at this point in a tinfoil-less manner.  ;-)

      by Palamedes on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:57:58 AM PDT

      •  Right On!

        Palamedes, that's the kind of posts we should have here.

        Let's work our tails off and give till it hurts.  Take nothing for granted.

        If none of the races are close and the number of seats we win are over 20 in the House and 7-8 in the Senate, there's no "there, there" in this diarists posting.

        Work, work, work and give, give, give!

        by tailor324 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:11:34 AM PDT

  •  Lie-berman

    We surround his limo, turn it over, and set it on fire.
    Problem solved.

    by UndercoverRxer on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:20:59 AM PDT

•  errr, is there a shortage of Dem lawyers

  all of a sudden? ;)

  by PhillyGal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:25 AM PDT

  •  good ones, yes n/t

    by Jim J on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:43:40 AM PDT

  •  In 04 they didn't get too far

    so maybe with some advance backing they can accomplish a bit more for us?

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:43:52 AM PDT

•  I think its more likely that some moderate Rs

  may switch, or at least vote in a solid block with Majority Democrats.

  There are plenty of moderate Rs that had to fight to get their spot as a dissenting R on CAFTA, Minimum wage, etc.

  They cant not vote for these things.  So they will have to follow the Dem agenda or face certain defeat in 2008.

  Granted we stay to a progressive, middle-class oriented set of proposals under a Dem backed house.

  by BWasikIUgrad on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:44:40 AM PDT

  •  great point n/t

    by Jim J on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:45:52 AM PDT

•  It's the same as campaigning

  I would do exactly what I do during any campaign, donate, write LTE's, make phone calls and support my party in whatever way it appears to need help.

  I would also expect that we would be doing the same thing in reverse -- challenging THEIR close elections!

  by DFWmom on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:46:13 AM PDT

  •  That's the "Suck it up for 50-state in 08"

    poll option, and it is in fact probably our most likely, practical, and possible response.  Though it's definitely lagging in the poll so far, with 10% of 100+votes.  The poll option for massive civil disobedience would, I think, be desirable, but despite leading the vote in this diary, in practical terms I just don't think enough Americans are ready to make it happen.  

    I like your point re challenging the close elections.  Lots of lawyers and lots of funding gathered in readiness so we can DOCUMENT irregularities and challenge IMMEDIATELY before the news cycles make it "stale" (ugh).

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:05:26 AM PDT

•  Look, Life goes on...

  even if they win FAIR AND SQUARE (glorf!) -- excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth -- life will still go on.

  BUT...it's probably safe to say that if the democrats can't win this time around they just can't win period. At least not without some cataclismic realignment event like the great depression or the reappearance of Elvis (or Andy Kaufman dressed as Elvis).

  ALSO, even if the democrats sweep into power with healthy margins in both chambers, NOT A WHOLE LOT will change visibly. These are, after all politicians, and the next election is only two years away (and the TV cameras are never more than two feet away). Probably the worst we can expect is more of the same -- a slow descent into evangelical, militaristic, big brotherism with a touch of "I can't believe we're that STOOPID" going on or at best a mild backtracking to the slightly less onerous days of the Reagan years (I never thought I'd look back fondly on the 80's...) Most likely hippie-drippy love fest and free healthcare dreams won't come to pass -- and equally as likely the four horseman  of pestilential doom and horror won't win out either.

  by PBJ Diddy on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:47:08 AM PDT

•  Does anyone remember the meaning of the word,

  hubris?

  by DCDemocrat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:51:54 AM PDT

•  Rove isn't a genius

  But he's probably smart enough to do some planning for close races.  Look what happened CA where the Repugs had planned to seat the Republican in Duke's old seat before the vote was certified.  What do we need to know?  We need to know if we win anywhere from ten to twenty-five seats where those races are likely to be, who is an expert on that's States code, how to get them engaged, what courts we will need to file in, etc.

  We probably should establish some profile for fifty races with the key information we would need if there was suspected fraud, or if there was a challenge to the results or where we needed to challenge the results.  Who knows enough to establish at least a database of the info we would need.  Who knows which are the races we need the info in.  After that we'll need volunteers to get us the information we need.

  by philipogog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:02:56 AM PDT

  •  Yes,!

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:10:28 AM PDT

•  Of course we must plan!

  Ben Ginsberg of Patton-Boggs wrote a column in the Washington Post back in July about the 2000 election. It's still online. Hope Dems get themselves ready. Snips:

  First, get the right people. ...We immediately started lining up former Supreme Court clerks, red-meat litigators, wily political operatives and top communicators. Be sure they're committed to your candidate ....

  Second, organize. Former secretary of state James A. Baker III led our recount effort. ... His first charge was the creation of a detailed organizational chart, which paid dividends throughout. The effort had structure and people had defined responsibilities in what was otherwise the most unpredictable, fast-paced and high stakes time of our professional lives.

  Next, get a good caterer and some extra phone lines. In other words, pay attention to logistics. You'll have many people to feed (you won't want them taking the time to forage on their own) and many people to keep in touch with minute by minute.

  Make sure you line up top lawyers, which in a recount are a necessary (and underappreciated) evil. Lawyers don't always win the congeniality prize during campaigns; after all, a big part of the job is saying no. But recounts are -- don't forget -- legal proceedings.

  An awful lot will be going on in each counting center, so be sure to develop a strong ground game. Have enough people (with an emphasis on those wily political operatives) to cover everything that happens. Be sure your staff members take detailed notes on each tally sheet, vote packet and ballot they see. That will prove crucial in an eventual court case.

  From the start, you'll need communications specialists. ... tell your side of every development every day. Communicators must also manage the deluge of inquiries you'll receive. If the lawyers and the staff in the counting centers have to manage this process, they'll be distracted from their real responsibilities.

  Ignore editorials. ... remember there's so much going on that even the best reporters won't know a third of what is happening ...

  find a very smart person to focus solely on the big picture, and empower him or her to speak up when the unexpected makes it seem expedient to change everything you've been doing. Your credibility rides on it.

  Learn to deal with the wild accusations; ...  Don't overreact, just debunk the allegations as best you can. Trust me, especially if you win, the bleating will continue long after the country has moved on. Don't worry about it.

  Thanks for bringing this to the forefront, Jim. Our democracy may depend on it!

  by cotterperson on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:04:31 AM PDT

  •  Not enough Kossacks want to go there

    That column you cite has excellent advice, and I'm pretty sure it is advice that would come in handy in at least some races.  If it got serious attention and planning it could happen, and it would really help.

    But I'm very discouraged that even mentioning negative outcomes is driving diary readers and recommenders away in droves.  Positive thinking is essential for winning, they say, and I know there's a lot of evidence for that.  But positive thinking does NOT always stave off disasters, and planned disaster responses ARE more coordinated than ones that are totally blind-sided.

    The probability of vote-counting fraud is all too real.  It's far, far beyond the conspiracy theory realm. There is NO NEED for us to get blind-sided on this.  

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:42:21 AM PDT

    •  Geez, yes!

      After what we saw in 2000 and 2004, I can't believe people aren't more concerned. There was (and still is) too much shushing-up after the 2004 loss. I'm sure positive thinking feels good, but I fear the GOP is already planning for a disaster -- for our side!

      I wonder if the Dems are even coordinating among states, with so many seats closely contested. The GOP bused in people from all over to raise hell and confuse things in Florida.

      Let's keep pushing the issue!

      by cotterperson on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:05:48 PM PDT

•  The good news

  Is that I think we've turned the corner, and so many Americans truely hate what these Republicans stand for, that the elections will not be close at all.  And IF they are, or are fraudulently won that there will be something akin to general strikes, and maybe even civil unrest.

  If we don't do something about it, it will be the end of American democracy.

  by Dcoronata on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:08:29 AM PDT

•  It would seem to me that if

  Senators or Congressmen switch parties and alter the control of the either chamber, them's the breaks.  That is precisely what happened when Jim Jeffords switched in 2001.  

  However, I think the most correct answer is that this is not going to happen.

  by Drgrishka1 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:08:54 AM PDT

•  I agree, we always should

  have plan but I'm getting more and more sure that we can win by large enough margins that even when Rove and the diebold people "adjust for inflation" we will still be able to regain control of our country. Once we have actual investigative power I don't think there will be any more troubling election results that won't go unnoticed or unpunished.

  The plan now is to keep fighting and pushing and shouting hard, boots on the ground (I'm calling off sick 11/7) I want to so annoy my Republican friends they get discouraged.

  Reid Pelosi '06
  Integrity Accountability '08

  by beneldon on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:10:28 AM PDT

  •  Just remember what happened to Max Cleland

    he went into the election with a +7 and lost by a +6. You did read those diaries about the georgia election and the "patch" that was placed in the machines in the two biggest dem counties. No margin can stop them from flipping votes under these circumstances, so I think everyone who is working on a campaign should start asking the candidates what they are going to ask supporters to do if this scenerio once again plays out.

    by Tanya on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:19:59 AM PDT

•  circumvent voting by waking up the populace

  I'm about to have a 40 page parable published that is set in the context of a teacher discussing with his students what an inarguable nightmare Bush and his enabling Republicans are. Most of the students are portrayed by comedians so it has a lot of humor and thus the potential to draw a large mainstream audience. You can access the file from my yahoo group UndoBush: http://groups.yahoo.com/...

  this is the file itself: http://www.geocities.com/...

  by Marty McFly on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:13:59 AM PDT

•  2 problems with your'scenario, no 'blue dog'

  Dem would throw in with these assholes (that includes me, no not the asshole part)
  second, not EVERY General plans for the worst case scenario. Look at T. Franks and Rummy.
  Otherwise, I'll be locked and loaded, just in case.

  by cabinetman1 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:20:01 AM PDT

•  When it comes to thinking like a loser

  nobody does it better than a Democrat.

  Hard to believe we were once ever in power with the attitude we have now.

  The GOP really did a head game on us.

  by Naturegal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

•  fight on fight hard

  I agree we need a plan but I'm beginning to think that maybe we just might win with enough margin to overcome any Diebold "adjustments" or Rove chicanery.
  The nightmare secnario I envision is the same in any coup. Something will happen that makes 43 and his ilk consider postponing or cancelling the election.
  Flame me for Tin-foiling my head but remember the Seattle port that shut down because they detected something but didn't find anything? John Mark Karr was all over the news right afterwards. They found nothing. No follow up, no revisit, no port security stories...

  by beneldon on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:28:15 AM PDT

•  I don't buy the buy-out

  part vis a vis the "Blue Dogs" but the Lieberman sell-out...sure, I firmly believe he is planning to go whichever way he "needs" to go to improve his personal fortunes, should he beat Lamont.

  I'll also buy into a very aggressive (contrast the repetitive Democratic feeble non-response to same) fight for recounts and ballot challenges to be mounted by the GOPers come November 7.  Throw in a touch of GOPer-controlled e-ballot chicanary and they could falsely turn some races their way.

  I do not believe any broader party switch by Dems (except for Lieberman) is in the offing.  I DO believe that there is an organic "plan" (if you will) by Dems to NOT challenge much of anything because it would be ugly and messy and lordy knows that ugly and messy is just too gauche and unseemly.

  Actually, any election result that goes against the Dems in a "magical" way so as to ensure retained  control of BOTH houses of congress by the GOP is likely to be due to fraud.  Fraud perpetrated by Secs of State and by corrupt e-voting companies and cronies.

  Keep your eyes on the Diebold.

  by Terminus Est on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:41:58 AM PDT

•  My Theory

  I'm one of those existentialists who has a Kafkaesque view an Orwellian world.

  There has to be a reason why nearly every Republican Secretary of State actively is entering multi-million contracts with Diebold to purchase the least secure and most innacurate voting machine (tested with a 10% margin of error) available on the market. A machine that does't even meet minimum FEC guidlines for use in an election.  

  Coincidentally,this same Dieblod machine is the only voting machine that does not leave a paper record available for a post-election reccount.

  Why do you think any honest secretary of state who has a duty to protect, secure, and perserve the voting results for a fair ballot count would purchase a rinky-dink Diebold electronic voting station that operates like a toy computer designed by Matel?

  Hmmmmm....

  The two states that were "must have" states for Bush's reelection were also the only two states in 2004 election that primarily used the Diebold electronic voting stations. Despite all the recalls and failures in Beta versions,  both Ohio and Florida's GOP Secretaries of State just had to have those rinky dink Diebolds up and running for the 2004 elections.

  The Ohio and Florida elections also had more election regularities, voter compliants, machine failues, and uncountable ballots than the other the sum total of voting irregularties in the other 48 states combined.

  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it does kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

  by Mr Populist on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:44:44 AM PDT

  •  Shit, The Democratic Secretary of State

    in Georgia is the one who sold us down the river.  I was a dem party official at the time and we warned her early on.  Nooooooo, it was not going to be a problem.  Hell she was running for Governor right after she did this.  How stupid. or lame or something.  Why in God's name did she do this.  And we still have them and they have NO paper trail at all.

    by philipogog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:48:51 AM PDT

•  OK, We need a plan

  Who's in charge and who does what?  Do we need a separate site so stuff isn't scrolling off constantly.  How do we keep from getting hit electronically.  Who is going to manage the database?  How about going through Brad Blog?  Do you think they would be interested?

  by philipogog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:45:28 AM PDT

•  Follow my twisted thoughts here please

  Losing may not be all bad.  If we pick up seats in the Senate where we are down 49-51, or even 50-50, and are still a seat or two down in the house.  The repubs still have the responsibility to solve the problems.

  In 2008, we can blame the repubs even more, sweeping not only the house, senate but also the white house.

  I don't remember who said it, but criticizing a plan is a lot easier then coming up with one.

  If we win in 2006, we will have a dug in repub minority, a vetoing president, and we will get the blame for anything that happens after that.

  Granted, I would rather win in 2006, gain more in 2008 including the WH.  But if we don't we can still work it to our advantage for 2008.

  by jimraff on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:47:29 AM PDT

  •  Jimraf,

    See Naturgirl's post above.  That's thinking like a loser.

    by philipogog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:53:01 AM PDT

    •  Not really

      It is setting up a strategy for 2008.  I have read somewhere that the repubs are hoping for a loss for exactly that same reason.  If they lose the house and senate, they blame the dems for everything as a strategy for 2008.

      by jimraff on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:01:03 PM PDT

•  I'd like to suggest that

  Anyone who thinks, believes, or is sure of this election going Democratic because of the polls, the commentators, and the general conventional wisdom, immediately needs to take a look at the final results of the first playoff games between the New York Yankees and the Detroit Tigers!

  by miriam on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:49:41 AM PDT

•  Hold onto your wallet and cash!

  After 9/11 Bush told everybody to go shopping. If they steal this election let's begin to spend the absolute minimum we need to live. No new cars, just milk as many miles as you can out of your old one. Use other forms of transportation to minimize gas purchases. Don't eat out, cook at home. Don't buy anything that is not an absolute necessity. These guys only understand in dollars.

  by WILRO09 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:02:00 PM PDT

•  voting machine to population/travel/lines

  Regardless of how true or not the e-voting hack problem is, one of the one we know is persistent problem is the deliberate under-availability of voting booths in minority precincts. This was highlighted in Ohio 2004, but is has been going on for years. Longer waits, longer lines, to vote in minority districts in one way voter supression is done all the time.

  There ought to be a way to get at this via equal right, one-person one-vote and of course the language of the Bush v. Gore supreme court decision.

  by DrSteveB on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:19:36 PM PDT

•  That scenario demands

  an "Orange Revolution."

  We import Ukrainians to show us how it's done.

  by ogre on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:13:16 PM PDT

  •  Oh, those Ukrainians ..

    thinking like losers!  Kossacks could NEVER emulate them.

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:43:03 PM PDT

    •  We need a website, a little money

      and some volunteers.  We need a website or a website to volunteer some band width.  We need somebody really good with a database.  We need info on close races (which we have here at KOS)and we need a contact in every state that can locate lawyers that will help when we need them.

      This sounds like the obvious job of the National Party doesn't it.  First, I guess we should check with the national party to see if anybody's doing that.

      OK, I'll try to do that.

      by philipogog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:55:48 PM PDT

      •  'Preciate it!

        I don't hang out at Bradblog much because a) their formatting hurts my eyes and b) dKos is already like "sipping from the firehose".

        But I do think given their prior leadership on this issue, they would a more receptive home for "disaster planning" teams.  

        by lgmcp on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:59:05 PM PDT